If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Seriously ?...if that were the case then please explain why perspective candidate like Gingrich and Palin go out of their way to please the Reagan conservatives and why He is considered the standard bearer for the modern day conservative movement..IMHO the Republican party has become sidetracked because it abandoned some of the principles that Reagan brought to the party, they moved to the center and thats not their nature or strong suit, if there is one thing the Tea Party has done its to kick the party in the rear and get them to move to the right of center which is where most of America sits too..

Why do ANY candidates go out of their way to please anyone? TO GET VOTES!

I think Reagan's Presidency offered a lot of good and a lot of bad. However, I also believe that the policies of his administration probably contributed more to the economic weakness of the US today than the policies of any other President with the possible exception of GWB. His was the Presidency that launched to belief that deficits were not a problem if done to reduce taxes or increase military spending. His policies led directly to bankrupting the Saving & Loan industry and undermining the financial stability of private pension plans that continue to be bailed out be taxpayers as a consequence. Linked to this, his administration's policies helped stimulate a wild west style of corporate management in which the long term future value of a company was sacrificed without thought to achieve short-term gains and the bonuses that went with them. These factors continue to haunt us today and are truly a core part of the Reagan legacy.

I think Reagan's Presidency offered a lot of good and a lot of bad. However, I also believe that the policies of his administration probably contributed more to the economic weakness of the US today than the policies of any other President with the possible exception of GWB. His was the Presidency that launched to belief that deficits were not a problem if done to reduce taxes or increase military spending. His policies led directly to bankrupting the Saving & Loan industry and undermining the financial stability of private pension plans that continue to be bailed out be taxpayers as a consequence. Linked to this, his administration's policies helped stimulate a wild west style of corporate management in which the long term future value of a company was sacrificed without thought to achieve short-term gains and the bonuses that went with them. These factors continue to haunt us today and are truly a core part of the Reagan legacy.

I am curious, how do you think the current administrations policies will affect future economic strength or weakness??

OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion. If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?

OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion. If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?

And that justifies spending a couple hundred billion and over 4,000 American lives in our attempt to "Nation Build"? Where Bush and his staff made the big mistake was in staying in Iraq after we determinded that there were no WMD's left in Iraq.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. Calvin Coolidge

OK, here's where we divide delusional whack jobs from those who disagree but are capable of rational discussion.

So you just culled yourself from that group with that comment.

If you really believe that we would have invaded Iraq without 9/11 having happened, you're officially a whack job (and a borderline ignoramus who has zero understanding of national politics). So let's give you the acid test....do you think the invasion of Iraq would have occurred without 9/11 having happened?

Just because we would NOT have invaded without 9-11, does NOT prove the inverse that you are implying--that since 9-11 occurred, that means we should have invaded. Actually, you have not begun to prove causation in either direction. Merely a series of events, that may be causally linked, an association without causation, or a mere coincidence. Your argument addresses none of that, but merely establishes a sequence of events and posits the inverse. Essentially, a lot of "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
A Hew-ism, if you will.